9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 190 - AT - Income TaxValidity of order passed u/s 92CA(3) as barred by limitation - Computation of period of 60 days - whether time limit of 60 days mandatory? - may in contrast to shall as used in Sec. 92CA(4) - order has to be passed by TPO before 60 days prior to the last day on which the period of limitation referred to in Sec.153 for making assessment expires - HELD THAT - As considering the statutory time limit, the order passed by Ld. TPO u/s 92CA(3) on 01.11.2019 would be barred by limitation and consequence as mentioned in para- 4 would follow. This order would be time barred as a result of which the assessee would cease to be an eligible assessee and therefore, the machinery of Sec.144C would not be triggered. The Ld. AO is not required to pass the draft assessment order; DRP would not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Consequently, the final assessment order passed on 30.04.2021 would be barred by limitation since in terms of Sec. 153(1) r.w.s. 153(4), the same should have been passed on or before 31.12.2019. The same is accordingly, liable to be quashed. Accepting first two legal propositions of Ld. Sr. Counsel, we would hold that the assessment would be nullity since it is barred by limitation. Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Transfer Pricing Order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and its limitation. 2. Validity of the Final Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) without considering the Dispute Resolution Panel's (DRP) directions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Transfer Pricing Order and Limitation: The assessee challenged the Transfer Pricing Order passed by the TPO on 01.11.2019, claiming it was barred by limitation as per Section 92CA(3A) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the order should have been passed on or before 31.10.2019, as upheld by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Pfizer Healthcare India Private Limited. The Tribunal noted the following key dates: - Date of TPO Order: 01.11.2019 - Date of Draft Assessment Order: 30.12.2019 - Date of Filing Objections before DRP: 29.01.2020 - Date of DRP Directions: 26.03.2021 - Date of Final Assessment Order: 30.04.2021 The assessee's counsel cited the Madras High Court decision in M/s Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that the TPO's order dated 01.11.2019 was barred by limitation. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, noting that the TPO's order should have been passed on or before 31.10.2019. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the TPO's order was null and void, rendering the assessee ineligible under Section 144C(15)(b) and invalidating the subsequent draft and final assessment orders. 2. Validity of the Final Assessment Order: The assessee also contended that the Final Assessment Order passed by the AO on 30.04.2021 was not in conformity with the DRP's directions and was therefore void. The Tribunal observed that the final assessment order should have been passed within the statutory time limit provided under Section 153(1), which, considering the extended period under Section 153(4), was 31.12.2019. Since the final assessment order was passed on 30.04.2021, it was clearly barred by limitation. The Tribunal referenced the Madras High Court's decision, emphasizing that the statutory time limits prescribed in Section 144C and Section 153 are mandatory and must be strictly adhered to. The Tribunal concluded that the final assessment order was invalid due to the time-barred TPO order and the failure to comply with the statutory time limits. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the assessment proceedings were null and void due to the time-barred TPO order and the subsequent invalid final assessment order. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment order dated 30.04.2021, rendering further examination of other legal grounds and merits of the assessment academic.
|
